re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have

quote:The White Paper does not require actual planning of an attack against the U.S. for one to become a target. So the actual standard for becoming a target is nothing more than guesswork by some unknown government employee.

I think there is a little more to it than that

I'll defer to the white paper for the conditions they set

quote:Here the Department of Justice concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a U.S. operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful:

(1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;

(2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and

(3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

This conclusion is reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a U.S. citizen, and also of the extraordinary seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al Qa'ida members and the loss of life that would result were their operations successful.

There is room to criticize the white paper but I don't think you've hit upon it yet

quote:Per the White Paper just the fact of communicating with the suspected terrorist is enough.

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have (Posted on 2/13/13 at 12:08 pm to C)

quote:Anwar al Awlaki's son said he hoped "to attain martyrdom as my father attained it" just hours before he was killed in a US Predator airstrike in Yemen in mid-October, according to a journalist who sympathizes with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Abdul Rahman al Awlaki, Anwar's 16-year-old son and an American citizen, made the statement to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's emir of the city of Azzam in Shabwa province. Azzan is one of several Yemeni cities currently under AQAP control.

"His sadness reached its peak after the American planes assassinated his father," said Abdul Razzaq al Jamal, a Yemeni journalist from Al Wasat, according to a statement posted on jihadist forums that was translated by the SITE Intelligence Group. Jamal spent weeks with AQAP in the Zinjibar area and elsewhere in southern Yemen, and wrote articles that sympathized with the terror group's attempts to control the region.

"But when he said to the Emir [Leader] of the city of Azzam, 'I hope to attain martyrdom as my father attained it,' it did not come to his mind that this will happen, and just one day after he said it. This actually happened. The son joined the father in another American raid that came only two weeks apart from the one that assassinated his father," Jamal continued.

Jamal said that AQAP members referred to Abdul Rahman, as "Usayyid," or the lion's cub, and intimated that Abdul Rahman would one day replace his father.

"The word 'usayyid' is the diminutive form of the word 'assad [lion],' and in this name is a reference to an Arab proverb: 'This cub is from that lion,'" Jamal said.

quote:Abdul Rahman was killed in a Predator strike in Shabwa province on Oct. 14. The strike targeted Ibrahim al Bana, AQAP's media emir. Al Bana was not killed in the attack. Abdul Rahman's death sparked outrage from the Awlaki family, which has claimed the teenager was not involved in terrorism and was merely in Shabwa to search for his father, who had been killed two weeks earlier.

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have (Posted on 2/13/13 at 12:14 pm to TigerDeacon)

quote:When did Congress declare war?

September 18, 2001

quote:The Fifth Amendment:

quote:The Department assumes that the rights afforded by Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as well as the Fourth Amendment, attach to a U.S. citizen even while he is abroad. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1957) (plurality opinion); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259,269-70 (1990); see also In re Terrorist Bombings of US. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 157, 170 n.7 (2d Cir. 2008). The U.S. citizenship of a leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces, however, does not give that person constitutional immunity from attack. This paper next considers whether and in what circumstances a lethal operation would violate any possible constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen

...

As the Hamdi plurality observed, in the "circumstances of war," "the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizen's liberty in the absence of sufficient process ... is very real," id. at 530 (plurality opinion), and, of course, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of a citizen's life is even more significant. But, "the realities of combat" render certain uses of force "necessary and appropriate," including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces in the armed conflict against the United States and whose activities pose an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States-and "due process analysis need not blink at those realities." !d. at 531 (plurality opinion). These same realities must also be considered in assessing "the burdens the Government would face in providing greater process" to a member of enemy forces. !d. at 529, 531 (plurality opinion).

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have (Posted on 2/13/13 at 12:20 pm to Decatur)

quote: But, "the realities of combat" render certain uses of force "necessary and appropriate," including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces in the armed conflict against the United States and whose activities pose an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States-and "due process analysis need not blink at those realities.

From the Justice Department... Doesn't jive with what you posted

quote:“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

Boy, sure seems like a frick ton of grey area... So the attack doesn't have to be imminent, like your quote says.

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have (Posted on 2/13/13 at 12:32 pm to Lsut81)

quote:Boy, sure seems like a frick ton of grey area... So the attack doesn't have to be imminent, like your quote says.

This is a legitimate criticism IMO

The paper does go into "imminence" a little further though

quote:Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. Given the nature of, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, in which civilian airliners were hijacked to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this definition of imminence, which would require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself. The defensive options available to the United States may be reduced or eliminated if al-Qa'ida operatives disappear and cannot be found when the time of their attack approaches. Consequently, with respect to al-Qa'ida leaders who are continually planning attacks, the United States is likely to have only a limited window of opportunity within which to defend Americans in a manner that has both a high likelihood of success and sufficiently reduces the probabilities of civilian causalities. See Michael N. Schmitt, State-Sponsored Assassination in International and Domestic Law, 17 Yale J. Int'l L. 609, 648 (1992). Furthermore, a "terrorist 'war' does not consist of a massive attack across an international border, nor does it consist of one isolated incident that occurs and is then past. It is a drawn out, patient, sporadic pattern of attacks. It is very difficult to know when or where the next incident will occur." Gregory M. Travalio, Terrorism, International Law, and the Use of Military Force, 18 Wis. Int'l L.J. 145, 173 (2000); see also Testimony of Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, 660 Hansard. H.L. (April21, 2004) 370 (U.K.), available at http:/ /www.publications.parliament. uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo0404 21 /text/404 21- 07.htm (what constitutes an imminent threat "will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats . . . . It must be right that states are able to act in self-defense in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups, even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack."). Delaying action against individuals continually planning to kill Americans until some theoretical end stage of the planning for a particular plot would create an unacceptably high risk that the action would fail and that American casualties would result.

By its nature, therefore, the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat, making the use of force appropriate. In this context, imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity, the possibility of reducing collateral damage to civilians, and the likelihood ofheading off future disastrous attacks on Americans. Thus, a decision maker determining whether an al-Qa'ida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that certain members of alQa'ida (including any potential target of lethal force) are continually plotting attacks against the United States; that al-Qa'ida would engage in such attacks regularly to the extent it were able to do so; that the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qa'ida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur; and that, in light of these predicates, the nation may have a limited window of opportunity within which to strike in a manner that both has a high likelihood of success and reduces the probability of American casualties.

With this understanding, a high-level official could conclude, for example, that an individual poses an "imminent threat" of violent attack against the United States where he is an operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force and is personally and continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States. Moreover, where the al-Qa'ida member in question has recently been involved in activities posing an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, and there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities, that member's involvement in al-Qa'ida's continuing terrorist campaign against the United States would support the conclusion that the member poses an imminent threat.

Second, regarding the feasibility of capture, capture would not be feasible if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country were to decline to consent to a capture operation. Other_ factors such as undue risk to U.S. personnel conducting a potential capture operation also could be relevant. Feasibility would be a highly fact-specific and potentially time-sensitive mqmry.

Third, it is a premise here that any such lethal operation by the United States would comply with the four fundamental law-of-war principles governing the use of force: necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity (the avoidance of mmecessary suffering). See, e.g., United States Air Force, Targeting, Air Force Doctrine Document 2-1.9, at 88 (June 8, 2006); Dinstein, Conduct of Hostilities at 16-20, 115-16, 119-23; see also 2010 Koh ASIL Speech. For example, it would not be consistent with those principles to continue an operation if anticipated civilian casualties would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs ofStafflnstruction 5810.01D, Implementation of the DoD Law of War Program~ 4.a, at 1 (Apr. 30, 2010). An operation consistent with the laws ofwar could not violate the prohibitions against treachery and perfidy, which address a breach of confidence by the assailant. See, e.g., Hague Convention IV, Annex, art. 23(b), Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, 2301-02 ("[I]t is especially forbidden ... [t]o kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army .... "). These prohibitions do not, however, categorically forbid the use of stealth or surprise, nor forbid attacks on identified individual soldiers or officers. See U.S. Army Field Manual27-10, The Law of Land Warfare,~ 31 (1956) (article 23(b) ofthe Annex to the Hague Convention IV does not "preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or else-where"). And the Department is not aware of any other law-of-war grounds precluding use of such tactics. See Dinstein, Conduct of Hostilities at 94-95, 199; Abraham D. Sofaer, Terrorism, the Law, and the National Defense, 126 Mil. L. Rev. 89, 120-21 (1989). Relatedly, "there is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict-such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs-as long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war." 2010 Koh ASIL Speech. Further, under this framework, the United States would also be required to accept a surrender if it were feasible to do so.

In sum, an operation in the circumstances and under the constraints described above would not result in a violation of any due process rights.

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have (Posted on 2/13/13 at 12:43 pm to Decatur)

quote:This is a legitimate criticism IMO

It would put my views on the strikes into a "Possible" category if the decisions were taken out of the hands of politicians and put in the hands of a grand jury.

But then there's still the same issue of the person not getting the right to defend themselves against their accusers. Who's to say that the govt wouldn't just come with false information in order to get the ok to kill

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have (Posted on 2/13/13 at 1:00 pm to Lsut81)

quote:It would put my views on the strikes into a "Possible" category if the decisions were taken out of the hands of politicians and put in the hands of a grand jury.

Never gonna get a grand jury for this. This is some of the most sensitive classified info we keep. A FISA-like court will be the closest thing it gets to, if that.

We are at war with these people (it was declared over 12 years ago). The President and his Generals already have the prerogative to make the decisions to kill these people. They don't use courts for pre-clearance to determine what military targets they can take out.

quote:But then there's still the same issue of the person not getting the right to defend themselves against their accusers.

From Hamdi:

quote:But, "the realities of combat" render certain uses of force "necessary and appropriate," including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces in the armed conflict against the United States and whose activities pose an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States-and "due process analysis need not blink at those realities." !d. at 531 (plurality opinion).

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have (Posted on 2/13/13 at 1:24 pm to Lsut81)

quote:I understand where you are coming from, but what stops them from tweaking their "Rule" in the future to include strikes inside of the US on "threats"...

They can't just tweak what they do willy-nilly. They are governed by the United States law (both statute and SC caselaw), treaties, the recognized laws of war, etc. They can't just do whatever they want to do by drafting a new white paper without a basis in those laws. The white paper has no legal effect.